BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The release by the Minister of Health of a report which examined the effects of

marijuana/cannabis use was dealt with on RNZ's Checkpoint on 15 and 16 May 1995

broadcast between 5.00–6.30pm and in various news bulletins on 16 May. As a

result of the findings, the government announced that it did not intend to decriminalise

marijuana and also to undertake a campaign to show that cannabis use was harmful.

Mr Currie complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the comments from three

named members of the Life Education Trust broadcast in bulletins and on Checkpoint

on 16 May were unbalanced and that there was no opportunity given for the

presentation of the opposing view.

As RNZ did not respond to the formal complaint within 60 working days, Mr Currie

referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. RNZ was then asked to respond to the formal complaint.

Maintaining that the coverage had to be looked at over both days and as a group which

advocated decriminalisation (NORML) had commented on the 15th and, further, as

the Life Education Trust members were expressing opinions, RNZ declined to uphold

the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Currie then referred his

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Act.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence which includes a

transcript of part of the broadcasts complained about and a full summary of the other

parts. This material is summarised in the Appendix and, the Authority decided,

because it was an adequate summary of a large number of broadcasts, it was sufficient

to determine the complaint. As is its practice, the Authority has determined the

complaint without a formal hearing.

A report released by the government examining the effects of cannabis use concluded,

first, that its use should not be decriminalised and, secondly, that an educational

campaign should be undertaken to show that its use was not harmless.

The report was discussed on Checkpoint, RNZ's current affairs programme broadcast

on National Radio between 5.00–6.30pm, on 15 and 16 May. On the 15th, the

Minister and an Associate Minister spoke in support of the report and a

spokesperson for NORML, a group which advocates the decriminalisation of

marijuana use by adults, opposed aspects of the report's findings.

The issues dealt with on Checkpoint were touched on in Morning Report on the 16th

and members of the Life Education Trust contributed comments on Midday Report

and Checkpoint on the 16th. In a lengthy interview on Midday Report, Detective

Superintendent Hastings of the Trust spoke of the conditions imposed by some States

in the US on driving licences because, he insisted, there was "absolutely no doubt at

all" that marijuana made one a worse driver. He referred specifically to a study from

Stanford University and commented:

Probably the most important study was the Stanford University study of

commercial airline pilots which demonstrated that 24 hours after smoking just

one "joint", the pilots could not land a plane safely. And the most shocked of

all were the pilots – they thought that they were completely free of the drug's

effects. Now, OK, that's involving complex machinery, but that just shows you

how long the actual THC in the drug stays in the body, and how it's still

affecting persons quite a long time after they've actually used it.

Another member of the Trust, Pauline Gardiner MP, doubted the effectiveness of the

education campaign if only $100,000 was invested. On Checkpoint that evening, a

further member, Trevor Grice, maintained that the use of "waccy baccy" or "electric

puha" was reaching epidemic proportions among some young Maori school pupils.

Mr Currie complained about the comments from the Life Education Trust members

broadcast on Midday Report and Checkpoint on the 16th. The broadcasts were

unbalanced, he maintained, as no reasonable opportunity had been given for the

presentation of other significant points of view on a controversial issue. He

questioned in particular the accuracy of the comments from Mr Hastings and Mr

Grice. In his final comment he withdrew his complaint about the comments made by

Ms Gardiner. He contrasted the assertions from Mr Hastings and Mr Grice with the

opinion of the Drug Policy and Education Council (on whose behalf he was writing)

that there was no evidence of problems caused by cannabis use on the roads or at

school. He concluded:

We in the Drug Policy and Education Council think it is an outrage that Life

Education Trust members support the criminalisation of people wanting to

smoke cannabis as a recreation just to keep themselves in lucrative jobs! We are

always willing to comment on the comments of Life Education Trust members.

In a second letter, written after he had read the research report cited by Mr Hastings

and in which he expanded on some issues, Mr Currie stated:

I accuse National Radio of allowing Hastings to distort the truth without any

corrective view being presented. The least that National Radio can do is to

mention the American and Australian accident studies which clearly show that

cannabis in the real world has been shown to be not a cause of serious or fatal

accidents.

RNZ failed to respond to Mr Currie within 60 working days at which time he referred

the complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Having been notified of the referral, RNZ apologised for the delay and maintained to

Mr Currie that its coverage of the report on 15 and 16 May was balanced. Dealing

with the specific matters raised by Mr Currie, RNZ said that Mr Hastings neither

advocated the adoption of draconian drug laws nor argued that the Stanford research

results applied directly to car drivers. Rather, RNZ said that he had drawn on his

extensive experience in the area of drug use and urged greater accountability and greater

responsibility.

The other two speakers, it continued, had expressed their opinions on matters with

which they were familiar.

RNZ assessed the complaint under s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act which requires

broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with:

s.4(1) (d) The principle that when controversial issues of public importance

are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable

opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either

in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of

current interest;

Pointing out that the news-worthy event had been the release by the government of an

in-depth health study, RNZ argued the broadcasts on 15 and 16 May had included a

wide range of different opinions on the proposals contained in the report. Section 4

(1) (d), it maintained, had been complied with.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Currie focused on Mr Hastings'

comments. Contesting some of his arguments about the effects of cannabis on car

drivers, Mr Currie believed that the researchers for the Stanford paper could well have

"fiddled things to get the results he wanted". He contended:

I think Hastings was misleading people by exaggerating the amount of hazard

presented by cannabis use on the road. I find it incredible that National Radio

featured his utterances without suitable balance. My own view is Hastings

wants a police state and will argue black and blue against legalisation of cannabis

or even decriminalisation in an effort to promote this aim.

The Authority first of all wants to record its displeasure that RNZ did not respond to

the complaint within 60 working days. It believes such tardiness is inexcusable.

The Authority, in its assessment of the complaint, was required to decide whether

RNZ had made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view within the

period of current interest. In the context of the current complaint, it considered that

the period included both 15 and 16 May. The public discussion on the report

concentrated on two issues – the opposition to decriminalisation and the educational

programme for children. Checkpoint on 15 May included comments from both the

Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health in support of the proposals.

The broadcast on 15 and 16 May included informed comment on both of these

matters. The Life Education Trust members spoke in support of both proposals but

questioned the effectiveness of the proposal to undertake an educational campaign

given, first, the apparent widespread use of cannabis – especially by some Maori

school pupils – and the limited amount of funding set aside.

The other proposal, that its use should not be decriminalised, was questioned by a

spokesperson for NORML on Checkpoint on 15 May who maintained that cannabis

had been widely used for 25 years and that adults should be entitled to make a choice.

The spokesperson also expressed disappointment that NORML, in view of its wide

network of users and the extent of the information held, had not been part of the

reporting committee.

In its report to the Authority on the complaint, RNZ maintained that its coverage of

relevant and informed opinion was sufficiently extensive – given the material contained

in the special report. In view of the range of the comments over two days as

explained above, the Authority concurred and concluded that the principle in s.4(1)(d)

was not contravened.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
26 October 1995

Appendix

Mr Currie's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 23 May 1995

David Currie of Petone complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about statements from

three members of the Life Education Trust which had been included on National Radio

news items broadcast during the day of 16 May 1995 and on Checkpoint broadcast

between 5.00 - 6.30pm that evening. The statements were made by Detective

Inspector Ian Hastings, Trevor Grice and Pauline Gardiner MP and had dealt with

cannabis use by school children and motorists.

Mr Currie stated that as no reasonable opportunity was given for the presentation of

other points of view on the controversial issue, the broadcasts breached the

requirement for balance.

Specifically, Mr Currie said that Mr Hastings had been given five minutes to advocate

the adoption of "draconian" American drug laws. Moreover, Mr Currie noted some

problems with random testing for drugs which had been proposed. He also said that

Mr Hastings' description of the effect of cannabis on driving was flawed. Mr Currie

added that he had prepared a media release in response to the broadcasts which, he

thought, had not been used.

Mr Currie also questioned Mr Grice's comments about the extent of cannabis use by

Maori at some schools. Mr Grice, he noted, did not produce evidence to substantiate

his claims. Mr Currie considered that Ms Gardiner's comments about the widespread

use of cannabis by school children were similar to those from Mr Grice and again were

not supported by evidence.

Observing that the three speakers were opposed to the decriminalisation of cannabis,

Mr Currie said that should that ever occur, their drug counselling business would

collapse. In opposition to the views they advanced, Mr Currie maintained that there

was no evidence of problems caused by cannabis use on the roads or at schools. He

concluded:

We in the Drug Policy and Education Council think it is an outrage that Life

Education Trust members support the criminalisation of people wanting to

smoke cannabis as a recreation just to keep themselves in lucrative jobs! We are

always willing to comment on the comments of Life Education Trust members.

A media release dealing with effect of cannabis use on driving was attached.

Further Correspondence

RNZ acknowledged the complaint and Mr Currie expanded on his formal complaint in

a letter to RNZ dated 19 June. He said that he had now read the paper cited by Mr

Hastings. As Mr Hastings had not pointed out that the test had involved airline pilots

using a simulator, Mr Currie maintained that the study could not be used for the

reasons advanced by Mr Hastings. Mr Currie referred to other research which, he

averred, revealed that alcohol - not cannabis - was the dominant problem for drivers.

Mr Currie argued:

I accuse National Radio of allowing Hastings to distort the truth without any

corrective view being presented. The least that National Radio can do is to

mention the American and Australian accident studies which clearly show that

cannabis in the real world has been shown to be not a cause of serious or fatal

accidents.

Mr Currie's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 1 September

1995

As RNZ did not respond to his formal complaint within 60 working days, Mr Currie

referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

The Authority sought comment from RNZ.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 12 September 1995

Apologising for the delay in its response, RNZ advised Mr Currie (in a letter copied

to the Authority) that it had declined to uphold the complaint.

RNZ recalled that the items arose from a release from the Minister of Health of a

special report about the health implications of cannabis use. It included a declaration

that the government did not intend to "decriminalise" the use of marijuana/cannabis.

Checkpoint on 15 May, RNZ stated, headlined the release of the study and

NORML's criticism of the government's refusal to consider decriminalisation. The

item had included comments from the Minister and NORML. Checkpoint the

following evening reported that the government intended to run an advertising

campaign to dispel the "myth" that marijuana use was not a health risk and included a

comment from Mr Grice.

An extended report had been carried on Morning Report between 7.00 - 8.00am on 16

May. Midday Report on 16 May included comment from Detective Superintendent

Hastings of the Auckland Drug Squad about drug tests for drivers in the United States.

In a brief comment in the 12.30pm bulletin, Ms Gardiner questioned the usefulness of

the proposed advertising campaign. The issue was dealt with again in Checkpoint of

16 May when Mr Grice spoke about the wide extent of the use of marijuana by some

young Maori school pupils.

RNZ then dealt with the specific issues raised by Mr Currie.

With regard to the issue about the use of a flight simulator, RNZ stated that Mr

Hastings had not suggested that real aircraft were involved. Accordingly, it did not

accept that this aspect of the complaint raised a valid point.

As for the complaint that Mr Hastings inferred that the tests involving pilots

suggested that car drivers who smoked cannabis were also unsafe, RNZ said that Mr

Hastings explicitly confined his comments to "complex machinery". Thus, that

comment had not misled listeners.

RNZ pointed out that Mr Hastings had considerable experience on the issue

discussed. He had not advocated the adoption of draconian drug laws - as Mr Currie

alleged - but greater accountability and greater responsibility. RNZ concluded with

regard to his comments:

The Company regards the item as one aspect of the general balanced coverage

arising from the government report.

Dealing next with the comments from Mr Grice, RNZ stressed that he spoke about

Maori aspects of marijuana use in his capacity as a member of the Life Education

Trust as he referred to his observations in schools which he had visited. Ms Gardiner

had expressed her opinion about the value of the government's proposed advertising

campaign and, RNZ concluded:

The Company believes it important to note that both the Grice and the Gardiner

items are clearly and beyond doubt reports of attributed statement of opinion,

and the thrust of those opinions is presented, not as fact, but as statements

commenting on the government study.

As for the substantive complaint, RNZ said it was worth repeating:

... that the coverage over more than one day is all in the context of the

government's just-released in-depth study into the health implications of

marijuana or cannabis use, a study completed for the government by a

committee government-appointed for the task.

Assessing the complaint about the lack of balance under s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting

Act, RNZ briefly summarised the contribution of the three named members of the Life

Education Trust. It also said that Checkpoint on 15 May had included comment from

NORML, a group which advocated decriminalisation. Declining to uphold the

complaint, RNZ concluded:

By the time the items which are the subject of the complaint are broadcast, a

wide range of different opinions as well as the basic news of the committee's

report have been extensively broadcast, but the complaint fails to take these

matters into account.

A general point must also be made here: all the material broadcast is related to

the base story, ie., the release of the "pioneering" in-depth health study. To

assess any "story" outside this context, in terms solely of its own immediate

content, is not a valid approach to ongoing coverage related to a general central

issue or report.

In its covering letter to the Authority, RNZ said it had not included audio recordings

in view of the range of broadcasts which had dealt with the issue. It believed that the

Authority could well find the transcripts and summaries sufficient.

Mr Currie's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20

September

1955

Dissatisfied with RNZ's response, Mr Currie referred it to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Currie expressed particular dissatisfaction with RNZ's response to his complaint

about the comments from Mr Hastings who, he said, had claimed:

... that because airline pilots scored less than a perfect score on making a

simulated landing on a flight simulator, after smoking a strong marijuana

cigarette, this meant that drivers would be dangerous on the road after cannabis

use.

He cited another study which concluded:

... that there was no indication that drivers who had used only cannabis were

any more likely to be killed or seriously injured than drug free drivers.

He also disputed Mr Hastings' comment that THC remained in the body 24 hours

after smoking a joint.

Noting that he had a copy of the paper cited by Mr Hastings, Mr Currie contended

that the researchers "fiddled things to get the results they wanted". He gave reasons

for his conclusion and argued:

I think Hastings was misleading people by exaggerating the amount of hazard

presented by cannabis use on the road. I find it incredible that National Radio

featured his utterances without suitable balance. My own view is Hastings

wants a police state and will argue black and blue against legalisation of cannabis

or even decriminalisation in an effort to promote this aim.

Failure to broadcast the results of other studies which showed that cannabis on its

own was not a problem on the roads, he concluded, showed a lack of balance and

support for a state where police officers were allowed to make dubious statements

unchallenged.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 22 September 1995

Observing that there seemed little to add, RNZ reminded the Authority that its

response had involved both a review of the overall coverage given to the

Government's report and comments on the specific aspects of the complaint.

First, RNZ argued that Mr Currie had shifted the ground of his argument to maintain

the substance of his complaint. RNZ also noted that the date at which Mr Currie said

he had sent some material had also changed in the referral.

Enclosing a recent editorial from "The Dominion" which advanced similar material to

that contained in the broadcasts complained about, RNZ commented:

The Company believes that it is fair to point out that the coverage of the special

government committee report would not normally be expected to move far into

the lateral detail provided by Mr Currie.

Mr Currie's Final Comment - 2 October 1995

Mr Currie acknowledged that the date of one of the studies cited in his initial press

release was incorrect but that it had been corrected in subsequent releases. Moreover,

he was surprised that the media had not used the material he had supplied as it

referred to authoritative studies. When Mr Hastings cited the Stanford study, he

noted, he had not referred to the qualifications which questioned the applicability of

the findings.

Mr Currie withdrew and apologised for the complaint which referred to Pauline

Gardiner as he now realised that she had not made the statement which he had

attributed to her.

He maintained that Mr Grice should have been questioned on the matters which he

alleged about drug use in some schools and, he concluded:

To sum up, my complaint is largely that National Radio has broadcast what

amounts to scare stories highlighting possible bad effects of cannabis but they

have failed to balance these with calming stories showing cannabis is not so bad

after all.